Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt
(Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland
Pastor: Colin Maxwell. Email: colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org
MY ANSWER TO A CATHOLIC RESPONSE TO AN ARTICLE PRINTED IN
THE KERRYMAN NEWSPAPER ABOUT THE RELICS OF ST THÉRÈSE
The assistant editor of the Kerryman invited me to submit an article on
the present tour of the relics of St Thérèse to Ireland.
I did so, and it printed as a letter in the Letters Page section. It
evoked the following response by private letter. Unfortunately the
writer, a Mr Pete Calvin, did not include his address so I cannot reply
to him privately. I am taking the liberty of replying over the Internet
since there doesn't seem to be any thing too personal in the letter.
Indeed, it is just a rebuke of my Protestant position. There is no
indication that the writer was seeking a reply. I do not publish or go
public with all my correspondence. First the original article which was
published in the Kerryman newspaper on 24th May, 2001:
THE RELICS OF ST THÉRÈSE OF LISIEUX
The
relics of St Thérèse are coming to a Catholic Church near
you. Already large crowds in several parts of Ireland have flocked to
see the casket containing some of her remains. Bishop Comiskey, visit
organiser, evidently hopes for a repeat of what has happened elsewhere:
"People come in their thousands to touch the remains of the dead
Thérèse because they wish to be themselves touched with
the living power of God who works through her." This makes it hard to
be negative about this visit but our title takes in St
Thérèse's Bible and this makes the difference.
St
Thérèse 's Bible must be viewed as the final authority in
this matter. God's thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9) -
cherished or otherwise - and it honours no one if we pit our thoughts
against God. The great question must always be: What saith the
Scriptures? (Romans 4:5)
There
are two distinct mentions of the bones of holy people in the Bible.
Both are in the Old Testament. One concerns the bones of Joseph which
the Children of Israel carried out of Egypt several hundred years after
his death (Exodus 13:19) and the other concerned a miracle which took
place around the bones of the long departed prophet Elisha (2 Kings
13:21) If we keep closely to what the Bible actually says, we will
discover that there is no record that [1] Any miracles were associated
with the bones of Joseph and that which was afforded to the bones of
Elisha was unsought for, unexpected and not repeated. [2] Both these
holy people were decently buried - there is no record that their
earthly remains were ever dissected in an act called "pious mutilation"
and dispersed abroad for pious adoration.
In
the New Testament, we read of miracles associated with the hem of
Christ's garment (Matthew 14:36) Handkerchiefs and aprons convey
miracles from Paul (Acts 19:12) Evidently these were not relics - both
the persons being very much alive! The passing of the shadow of Peter
(Acts 5:15) - again not a relic - held great expectations to those who
were sick, although there is no record that such expectations were
realised. In all three cases, there is no precept or encouragement in
the New Testament that such was to be repeated or expected again.
The
Church maintains a very fine distinction between venerating and
worshipping relics. However it is so finely tuned, that the adoring
soul can hardly avoid moving into the realm of idolatry and so incur
God's displeasure. We stand here on very dangerous ground. God's ways
are not our ways. They are infinitely better. God speaks to us through
His own written word. St Thérèse's Bible is sufficient to
instruct us in the way of salvation (2 Timothy 3:15-17) The rest is
surplus to our requirements and should be treated as such.
Colin Maxwell
A few days later, I got the following letter from Mr Calvin. His words are in black...my comments are in red.
The letter was hand written, not typed, and so there are one or two
places where I cannot decipher what Mr Calvin is writing. I have placed
what I think he wrote [in square brackets]
Rev Colin,
Still running around with 14th/15th century pseudo religious problems and thinking you must correct the feeble minded papists!
My letter to
the Kerryman is of a gracious, though faithful kind. If I had used the
language Mr Calvin employs here, I would be rightly condemned as being
patronising etc., I do not and will not insult the people whose faith
teaches them to give adoration to relics. If Mr Calvin is writing his
reply because he thinks I do, then such a misconception must colour the
rest of his letter.
Come out of the time warp please!
Why
am I in a time warp? It cannot be on the basis that I feel that I "must
correct feeble minded papists" because this is not my position. If it
is because I have raised a matter that deals with the Roman
controversy…then by replying in such robust terms…surely
Mr Calvin is just as in the so called time warp as he alleges I am. I
trust that we are going to get some decent debate here with scripture
argument and not just some sound bites and bombast. Such will say more
about Mr Calvin than it will about me. Bearing in mind my limitation
with space (I was limited to around 500 words) - a limitation Mr Calvin
is not bound to - I think that my letter brings forth several clear,
scriptural points.
Examine some of your pre-suppositions and be honest with yourself.
Has
Mr Calvin some pre-suppositions? Or are we being asked to believe that
such a thing would be totally unknown to him? I dare say that both
of us carry the baggage of pre-supposition. That is human nature. But I
pledge myself to abandon my position if I can be convinced from
scripture that is wrong.
You are hung up on this idea: 'The Bible must be viewed as the final authority…'
I
suppose "hung up" is a poorer substitute for the words "You happen to
believe…" Am I at liberty to say that Mr Calvin is "hung up" on
the idea that the Bible is not the final authority?
Before books were written [or]
records kept society existed and [exists] and has its own [construct ?]
- at the very heart of which is the concept of authority. (You
acknowledge this (inadvertently) when you speak of 'final authority')
Church is a special [kind] of society and it goes without saying that
'authority' is crucial to its shaping - that 'authority' historically
was responsible for putting together the Bible and continues today to
safeguard that Bible.
Fair
enough…as far as it goes but I suspect that we are going to
disagree on who constitutes the Church and also on the manner whereby
the same Church "put together the Bible" and safeguards it. Right away,
I guess, that your pre supposition is that this authoritative Church is
the Roman Catholic Church. I believe otherwise. I hope that you can
supply me with scriptural evidence to back up your propositions.
Otherwise, I'm afraid that, apart from putting this up on our church
website page (for the purposes of showing our readers the bankruptcy of
your views) I will have to turn my attention elsewhere.
That Bible is a relic, a record
of the community life to which the church through its authorities
wishes to be [be] (I think this is a repeated word) faithful.
The
Bible is the word of God. It is full of instruction from God to us,
mainly given to make us wise unto salvation: How to be saved and how to
live the life of a saved person. It is much more than a mere record. A
relic denotes something rooted in the past. A relic is dated. The Bible
is not. It might deal with historic occasions and happenings, but it is
timeless. Sorry, I cannot agree with your rather low views of Scripture.
Historically around the 15th
century with the development of the printing press and every access to
the scriptures, people [?] of themselves and with the new books in
their hands [?] to themselves 'this is all I need' and forgot the wider
picture with the necessity for authority for correct interpretation etc
- just like today with the 'computer solution' offering to set us all
free. New technologies dazzle people - your ancestor's in your faith
going back to the Reformation were dazzled by printing and made the
mistake that once they had a copy of the Bible in their hands, that was
all that was needed (Pride?) (False God?).
I
wonder why Protestantism has held tenaciously to the Bible then for so
long, if the inclination is to run after every new thing? Why did it
not abandon the word of God when, for instance, the Industrial
Revolution came along, or (even as mentioned) the computer age? The
image being portrayed above is certainly novel, but little else. If the
charge of "pride" is going to be levelled, surely it is to be levelled
at those who believe that they can sit in judgement of the word of God.
If the charge of following a false god is true…why then do the
Roman Catholic ecumenists see us as "fellow believers"? Either Mr
Calvin is wrong or the ecumenists in his church (including his Pope)
are wrong. Actually…they are all wrong.
The Bible became the untouchable icon - yet every fool's interpretation
were to be of equal merit in the absence of a properly acknowledged
authority in the church!
Mr Calvin here
is presenting either a parody or a misunderstanding of the Protestant
position. Either ways - he is not presenting the truth of the matter. I
reject the interpretation of every fool including that of those who
think that they and they alone can sit in judgement of the word of God.
Mr Calvin should produce documentary evidence to show that Protestants
believe that every fools interpretation is of equal merit. The true
interpretation of the Bible is that which agrees with the Bible itself
i.e. cannot be shown to be inconsistent with any passage or verse of
scripture. For instance, if I were to advance the teaching that the new
birth is unnecessary to enter the Kingdom of God - arguing that there
is no mention of it by name in various records of those who were saved
- then I could be easily refuted by a simple reading of John chapter
three. Jesus used the strongest of language to convey the thought that
it was necessary. The scripture itself is its own interpreter. I
formulate my teaching in accord with what it declares. I go
further…I subject the teaching of others to the same rule which
is applied to myself. I am at liberty - indeed it is my bounded duty -
to subject the teaching of the Church of Rome to the same standard
-accepting those doctrines which are scriptural and repudiating those
which are unscriptural.
Take your sentence 'The Bible
must be viewed as the final authority' - who says so? - you? - by what
authority? that assertion of yours comes from outside the Bible and
then in your letter to the Kerryman (May 24th) you proceed to give an
interpretation of the Bible!
If we agree
that the Bible is the word of God (a thought which Rome assents to)
then by necessity it must be the last word. The greatest authority
always gets the last word. Pray tell me, Mr Calvin, who is greater than
God? I say so on the basis of the Bible itself which teaches the
supremacy of God and His word from its very first page. I remember once
debating a member of the Legion of Mary who proceeded along the lines
here traversed by Mr Calvin. I asked him simply three things. [1] Is
the Bible the word of God? He affirmed it was. [2] Is the Church to be
subject to God? Again…He affirmed it was. [3] Is the Church then
to be subject to the Bible which is the word of God? Quite simple, you
would think. He wriggled and wriggled and when I insisted that he give
me a simple answer - yes or no - he accused me of posing a trick
question. Yes…in the Kerryman I do give an interpretation of the
Bible. (Given above) Show me from the same Bible where I am wrong, and
I will quite happily align my position with the word of God.
Can't you see that you are being dogmatic and claiming final authority for yourself and not for God.
It takes an
awful lot to read that into what is written in the article above. But
to make it really easy for Mr Calvin, let me put his mind at rest and
say that I categorically do not claim to be the final authority on any
religious matter. I am a follower of the Lord Jesus and I am most
content to let the word of Christ dwell in me richly (Colossians 3:16)
and let His word be the final authority. The thought of being the final
authority frightens me. No man or body of men have the wherewithal to
be the final authority. That prerogative belongs to God alone.
In truth, you are not giving us
the truth of the Bible, rather you are 'enlisting ' the Bible to
support your own preconceived ideas about relics which in turn have
been shaped by late medieval excesses in that area of religious life.
Easily said but
not so easily defended. I am prepared to have my views shaped by the
word of God. While I greatly admire John Calvin and Luther etc., yet I
subject them to the word of God. There are things they taught which I
find unscriptural and therefore reject those particular teachings. All
I am asking is that someone show me from the Bible where I am wrong.
Empty allegations are not likely to persuade me to change my mind. When
such are substituted for Biblical reasoning, I tend to see through it
very quickly and ask myself: "Is this the best that they can do?" Not
impressed.
The Bible is a relic -
I have disassociated myself from this rather low view of the word of God above.
- any copy of it we venerate
but we don't worship it and to quote yourself, 'the adoring soul can
hardly avoid moving into the realm of idolatry - your ancestors in the
Reformation failed in this regard when they virtually abandoned church
authority and mistook the record of the community [The Bible] for the
seat itself of the community's authority principle.
Protestants
do not worship or venerate the Bible in the sense that we pay homage to
the paper and ink. We worship the God whom it speaks of and whose word
it is and we venerate its teaching. The quotation above about the
adoring soul - lifted here out of context - is in relation to the so
called line of distinction which Rome places upon venerating saints
etc.,
The
Reformers did not abandon the authority of the Church. They simply saw
that Rome had forfeited her right of being considered a Christian
Church. I dare say that Rome is more pagan than Christian. Even where
she does hold to orthodox doctrine…this stems not from the Bible
as the last word but effectively from her own authority. But even the
purest church is subject to the Scriptures.
But we still have you setting yourself up as 'The final word' so all is not lost.
Pete Calvin
Mr Calvin
finishes his letter on an erroneous note. As written above, I do not
see myself as (I note the use of quote marks for this one which is
downright misleading and dishonest) 'The final word' Since I have
already answered this error/misrepresentation above, it is not
necessary to do so again.
Colin Maxwell.